metroidfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Human
"As they did not evolve as a hunting or battling species, they require weapons for combat purposes." Dosen't being a predatory species and the fact that humans used to hunt for animals (and still do) count as evolving as a hunting species? [[User:Hellkaiserryo12|''Hell''Kaiserryo12]]ADMIN] (Talk• ) 20:54, February 28, 2010 (UTC) I think it means that they did not evolve their own weapons, like a praying mantis has it's claws.--[[User:DekutullaZM|''Deku]][[User talk:DekutullaZM|tulla]] 22:13, February 28, 2010 (UTC) When did our species become Cyborgs? Tell me ... When? Metroid101 20:24, May 18, 2010 (UTC) The moment that we began enhancing our bodies through cybernetic means? What century are you communicating from, bro? Know anyone with an artificial pacemaker? 'ChozoBoy' http://metroid.wikia.com ADMIN (Talk/ ) 20:30, May 18, 2010 (UTC) How do we know that every single human in the metroid series is doing that? Metroid101 20:41, May 18, 2010 (UTC) That is a loaded question. The category suggests that some individuals are cyborgian. (And they are.) 'ChozoBoy' http://metroid.wikia.com ADMIN (Talk/ ) 21:50, May 18, 2010 (UTC) Then add the category to those people and not all humans in general Metroid101 21:59, May 18, 2010 (UTC) Note that not all Pirates have readily apparent cyborgian traits, yet we have them in the category and you haven't peeped about that. Bias? 'ChozoBoy' http://metroid.wikia.com ADMIN (Talk/ ) 22:03, May 18, 2010 (UTC) Bias? I didn't go to the Space Pirate article, But now that you mention it we should correct that... We should probably move it to the Pirate Milita page, the Pirate Commando page and so forth. Plus, Space Pirates have been hinted to be multiple species so we can't say that they are all cyborgs. Metroid101 22:08, May 18, 2010 (UTC) Maybe you ought to have looked at Category:Cyborgs. While I hadn't put a categorical description on the page, the intent was to cover subjects that were prone to or capable of cyborgian enhancements. This put the two groups in that jurisdiction. 'ChozoBoy' http://metroid.wikia.com ADMIN (Talk/ ) 22:16, May 18, 2010 (UTC) :or capable of cyborgian enhancements? that means almost everything on this wikia goes in that one category. Metroid101 22:21, May 18, 2010 (UTC) Obviously, anything is capable of being enhanced cybernetically, but not all have demonstrated performing this on themselves. Regarding the subjects that you just added to the category, I don't think that we can call them cyborgs because they have no (known) permanent or internal cybernetics. 'ChozoBoy' http://metroid.wikia.com ADMIN (Talk/ ) 22:24, May 18, 2010 (UTC) But you said "or capable of cyborgian enhancement", So since you don't believe that anymore then its safe to says that pretty much sums out that Samus is the only person we know that has Cyborgentic enhancements who is human. 'SO' that means that humans can't fit into the cyborg category Metroid101 22:29, May 18, 2010 (UTC) :Actually, all Star-Trackers do. It is safe to assume that many other humans do, as well. 'ChozoBoy' http://metroid.wikia.com ADMIN (Talk/ ) 22:36, May 18, 2010 (UTC) ::*Then make an article for star-trackers and give the category to them, Not to ''ALL humans. And also, as a warning you are beginning to act hypocritical as seeing from this previous comment "I don't think that we can call them cyborgs because they have no (known) permanent or internal" then you said "It is safe to assume that many other humans do, as well" Also never Assu''me cause you make an '''Ass' out of u'' and ''me ''Metroid101 22:46, May 18, 2010 (UTC) The recurring misinterpretation you've had is that the category is meant to apply to all individuals of the species. It isn't. 'ChozoBoy' http://metroid.wikia.com ADMIN (Talk/ ) 22:51, May 18, 2010 (UTC) :But that doesn't make sense, Let me show you why with edits I am going to do Metroid101 22:57, May 18, 2010 (UTC) You don't need to make examples in the articles. Could you instead give me an example of a cyborgian Chozo in this talk page? 'ChozoBoy' http://metroid.wikia.com ADMIN (Talk/ ) 23:00, May 18, 2010 (UTC) Samus is part Chozo and got cybernetic enhacements from them, They probably did the same thing to their species. Metroid101 23:04, May 18, 2010 (UTC) Could you cite that? The example I gave you said that she got them from the GF. 'ChozoBoy' http://metroid.wikia.com ADMIN (Talk/ ) 23:05, May 18, 2010 (UTC) In the Prime Series (in lore)/ Manga, She gets her suit from the Chozo who make it so that she can only use them by cybernetically enhancing her so that it bonds with her Metroid101 23:08, May 18, 2010 (UTC) The suit isn't what makes her a cyborg, it is the internal enhancements. Also, Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. 'ChozoBoy' http://metroid.wikia.com ADMIN (Talk/ ) 23:11, May 18, 2010 (UTC) ::Some people consider us all to be cyborgs, as most all of us wear clothes. Some people consider that to be cybernetic. And also, the metroid universe considers all space pirates to be evil and criminals, despite being called a species, not an organisation. Rascism much? [[User:Hellkaiserryo12|Hell''Kaiserryo12]]ADMIN] (Talk• ) 13:39, October 17, 2010 (UTC) Humans resist Phazon? There is no evidence to support this. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. 1) Samus, first of all, is not human. She is a hybrid, made up of both human and chozo cells. That alone does not prove that normal humans can withstand phazon. Also, remember that Samus started using the phazon with her PED suit two weeks after Rundas, Ghor and Gandrayda were sent to their missions. And sure enough, as time passes, Samus starts to lose control of her Phazon. Samus would have eventually fallen to corruption, but thankfully, she succeeded in her mission in several hours, while the other hunters seemingly suffered over a week before falling to corruption. 2) The preview trailer for Prime 3 clearly show humans with phazon madness. And AU 242 clearly states in this trailer that their version of the PED suit is superior to the pirates' version, meaning its not humans themselves who can seemingly resist (for an undetermined time) phazon madness, but their PED suit that's protecting them from that. And this protection doesnt seem to last indefinitely, as corpses seen in the GFS Valhalla indicate that they lost control over their phazon, according to Samus' scan. ( 06:48, October 17, 2010 (UTC)) Foodstuffs I think this page should mention that Ridley uses humans as a snackfood and as a way of regenerating his body. Obscure 00:18, October 18, 2010 (UTC) :Oh come on, I wrote that satirically because of how dumb the Food category is. Obscure 05:30, October 18, 2010 (UTC) Taxonomy I'm tired of having to constantly revert your edits, anonymous IP contributor. It's clear to me that you were never taught basic biological taxonomy, or else you had been taught but remain fervently in denial. I will assume good faith and hope for the former, in which case I will now explain (in a very simplified fashion) why humans are mammals. This is not a philosophical or religious argument about whether or not humans are animals. This is about the basic facts of biology that lay the foundation for taxonomy, the classification of all life as we know it on Earth. At the cellular level, all life shares the same core concepts. The differences between cellular structure (i.e. whether it has nucleus, cell walls, chloroplasts, etc.) and interaction (i.e. single cell vs. multicellular organisms) allow us to classify life into several major groups called kingdoms, including Bacteria, Fungi, Plantae, and Animalia (I'm leaving out some kingdoms just to simplify this so you don't get confused). On the cellular level, humans aren't merely "similar" to other animals; we're nearly identical. After all, we have nuclei, we don't have cell walls, and so on and so forth. Therefore, humans are included in the kingdom that happens to be called Animalia. Again, this is not about whether or not humans are animals, we're just not going to change the name of the kingdom (e.g. "Animalia Plus Homo Sapiens") on the account of one species that is included. From here, Animalia is further divided into smaller groups, with the most relevant one to our discussion being Vertebrata: the subphylum containing all species with backbones, which therefore includes humans (after all, we have more in common with birds and lizards than we do with jellyfish or ants). Vertebrata can then be divided into classes that contain fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Humans have lungs, so we cannot be fish; humans are not amphibious, so we cannot be amphibians; humans are warm-blooded, so we cannot be reptiles; and humans do not possess feathers or lay eggs, so we cannot be birds. That leaves only the class Mammalia, which is largely defined by several key traits, including giving live birth, possessing mammary glands for nursing, and possessing hair. Humans match all the criteria of the Mammalia class. This makes sense after all; we have much more in common with other mammals such as monkeys, dogs, and cows than we do with any birds, reptiles, etc. And in terms of genetics, we're nearly identical to several other primate species. Again, I'm keeping this extremely simplified, but these are the basic facts. So, you can make your philosophical arguments saying humans are special because we're sapient and therefore we're not animals, or you can deny evolution and insist that creationism is the only way humans can exist. But that's not relevant at all. That's ignoring the taxonomical definition of what a mammal is. This isn't based on philosophy or religion, it's based on scientific fact. And therefore, since the Homo sapiens species is currently classified as Mammalia, humans are mammals. That's taxonomy 101 for you. --PeabodySam (talk) 15:55, December 22, 2019 (UTC) :What you are saying is a load of crap scientists don't always know what they are taking about shame on you for pushing this propaganda. ::Funny you should say that, because I'm a scientist and I know what I'm talking about. ::Why would you come to a wiki based on a sci-fi franchise and then try to deny science? At this point, I'm sure you're probably just trolling us, but I'll humor you a little bit longer just in case you're actually being sincere. ::Let me ask you something: where is the "load of crap" you speak of? Where is the lie? Are you denying that human cells, tissues, and organs are nearly identical to those of countless other Animalia species? Are you saying humans lack vertebrae and shouldn't be classified as Vertebrata? Or are you claiming that humans don't have hair and don't give live birth, as Mammalia do? At what point did I say anything factually incorrect in my above taxonomy 101 lesson? --PeabodySam (talk) 22:36, December 25, 2019 (UTC)